New round structure - OPTION B - we'd like your feedback!

elotar wrote:

It's not really important what you (the guy, who already knows the rules) think, catch somebody at the boardgame shop and show him two options and ask, what he thinks.

As someone who has only been playing for a little more than a year, I didn't find the combat too much to understand. Of course I've screwed up the timing of cards since, but in no way have the current combat rounds ever put me off from playing. In fact, I enjoy how combat works in VTES.

I also prefer option A over B, but it seems like I'm more of a grognard around here than the players who have been playing for 20 years...

Cat_in_Exile wrote:

As someone who has only been playing for a little more than a year, I didn't find the combat too much to understand. Of course I've screwed up the timing of cards since, but in no way have the current combat rounds ever put me off from playing. In fact, I enjoy how combat works in VTES.

[/quote

Me too. Overall, the substantial nature of combat is one of the game's strengths.

AaronC wrote:

Practically, you cannot rewrite those 117 cards, and you should not deny future designers the opportunity to design "pre-range" cards.

Which of these cards is broken by playing it together with maneuvers instead of before? Due to Impulse rules, those cards are still played before the range is known for sure because the opponent can always play a maneuver after.

Non-existant user wrote:

AaronC wrote:

Practically, you cannot rewrite those 117 cards, and you should not deny future designers the opportunity to design "pre-range" cards.

Which of these cards is broken by playing it together with maneuvers instead of before? Due to Impulse rules, those cards are still played before the range is known for sure because the opponent can always play a maneuver after.

All of them that are cycled into if I control the opposing minion

But seriously, 4 parts:

Beginning:
Player with impulse plays cards reworded to be played at "the beginning of a round of combat " such as crows, signposts, etc.
Other player plays, impulse passes, etc.

Maneuvers

Impulse owner may maneuver to long (or close if fear the void below, etc happens).
Other player gains impulse, maneuvers, it passes, etc.

Strikes
A. Impulse player chooses.
Opponent chooses.
B. Resolution
B0.5 begin prevent window for damage in b1 to b1.5
B1. Dodges/sce/first strike/theftyness/effects
B1.5 damage from strikes and environmental.
C1 additional strikes
C1.1 begin prevention window for b2.
C1.2 dodges, etc
C1.3damage...

End
Presses
Taste
Press timed stuff (disarm...)
Effects canceling the end.

Grapple is changed to "only usable at close range once the opposing minion declines to maneuver to long range. Play before strikes are chosen."

It gets nothing exclusive for timing. Its played at the end of manuevers, so, just like you ask if your press blocking a bleed, you ask if they manuever to long, and grapple depending in the answer.

Also, blood to water gets this wording.

So its simple and most thinking happens during strikes, as it should be.

It starts at beginning. It ends at end.
Middle is maneuvering and striking. Simple but not invasive, aside from cards reworded, which is optimal now anyway.

Ok guys,

talking about specific cards doesn't help much I think.

1. Are there good reasons to simplify Combat?
I think yes.

2. In the broader sense, are there good reasons to add relevance to combat in the game, to make it coherent with the number of cards and resources it has or to make it closer to the Winning Conditions of the game?
I think yes.

3. Can we simplify combat, keeping the base functionality of all cards?
i think yes.

Some cards might win / lose relevance.
But the overall game will be better. And more fun.

Imagine... if combat could actually be a valid winning strategy?

ReverendRevolver wrote:

Stuff stuff stuff...

So wait, am I missing something - isn't what you're talking about basically the option A that was suggested in another thread?

It's completely valid, but doesn't really add much more to the option B discussion, other than "I prefer A".

Or was there a further point I missed that makes your suggestion radically different from option A?